Having enjoyed reading your
biographical, They
can't take that away from me...
I would love to post your article (for
my) course for seniors entitled Autobiography and Journaling ... and
let them read your article as a good example of what I call the
reader's writer, clearly expressed and easy to read. (Howell)

The French language has always
appealed to me ... so I enjoyed Lavinia's experiences
en France! (Di
Sullivan, Perth, Australia)

I am an American and an expat here
since 1990. I have been a subscriber to Writing Tip for a few years
now and look forward to the
Friday editions.
I archive by creating topics of the tips relevant to me and often
refer. (Mary, Lagos, Nigeria)

WRITERS!

Write Your Own
Best Seller!

This year, don't
just read a best-seller ...
Write your own using the software program that works in the
same way J K Rowling writes her Harry Potter novels!

Great newsletter - originally found
this site after searching for clarification on a
contentious point
amongst work colleagues. Just had to look at old issues and now look
forward to Fridays (Juliet Wallace, Manchester, ENGLAND)

The Write Way

10 January 2003

No, No, No!

Greetings,

As we hurl ourselves at the third
(or fourth, depending on your mathematical persuasion) year of the new
millennium, and everyone is being all positive and gung-ho, making and breaking
New Year's resolutions with gay abandon, I thought this would be a good time to
focus on the negative ... because negatives are easier to understand ... or are
they?

As Lavinia said, stamping her
daintily-clad foot just the other day, "No, no, a thousand times no!"

In English, we often form negatives
by adding a prefix to words:

likely - unlikely

understood - misunderstood

complete - incomplete

modest - immodest

reversible - irreversible

logical - illogical

Not really all that logical, is it?
All those different prefixes, all meaning the same thing ... NO!

But you can be pretty sure
that if you add a prefix to a word, you're changing its meaning ... Umm ...
except for words like "flammable" and "inflammable."

If something is
"flammable" it means it will burn readily ... right? So ... if it's
"inflammable" that should mean it doesn't burn ... right?

Wrong. Both words mean the same.

Visitors to the Apostrophe Forum
have been addressing this problem of flammable and inflammable materials.
Richard Tinsley did some investigating and found the following satisfactory
explanation at the Word Detective site here

Blame it on Latin
and its tricky prefixes. In the beginning, there was "inflammable," a
perfectly nice English word based on the Latin "inflammare," meaning
"to kindle," from "in" (in) plus "flamma" (flame).
"Inflammable" became standard English in the 16th century. So far, so
good.

Comes the 19th century, and some well-meaning soul dreamt up the word
"flammable," basing it on a slightly different Latin word, "flammare,"
meaning "to set on fire." There was nothing terribly wrong with
"flammable," but it never really caught on. After all, we already had
"inflammable," so "flammable" pretty much died out in the
1800's.

"But wait," you say, "I saw 'flammable' just the other day."
Indeed you did. "Flammable" came back, one of the few successful
instances of social engineering of language.

The Latin prefix "in," while it sometimes means just "in"
(as in "inflammable"), more often turns up in English words meaning
"not" (as in "invisible" -- "not visible"). After
World War Two, safety officials on both sides of the Atlantic decided that folks
were too likely to see "inflammable" and decide that the word meant
"fireproof," so various agencies set about encouraging the revival of
"flammable" as a substitute. The campaign seems to have worked, and
"inflammable" has all but disappeared.

That left what to call something that was not likely to burst into flames, but
here the process of linguistic renovation was easier. "Non-flammable"
is a nice, comforting word, and besides, it's far easier on the tongue than its
now thankfully obsolete precursor, "non-inflammable."

The Oxford English Dictionary adds
this usage note:
Historically, flammable and inflammable mean the same thing.
However, the presence of the prefix in- has misled many people into
assuming that inflammable means "not flammable" or "noncombustible."
The prefix -in in inflammable is not, however, the Latin negative
prefix -in, which is related to the English -un and appears in such
words as indecent and inglorious. Rather, this -in is an
intensive prefix derived from the Latin preposition in. This prefix also
appears in the word enflame. But many people are not aware of this
derivation, and for clarity's sake it is advisable to use only flammable to give
warnings.

There's a natty little exercise you
can try to test your knowledge of negative prefixes ... just to make sure you
were listeninghere.

Have Your Say
...

Leave a comment now

Most people who've contacted me
about last week's topic on
the difference between "two times" and "twice" seem to agree
that "twice" IS more commonly seen in UK English, and that
"thrice" is rare in the US. A number of people pointed out that Lionel
Ritchie had a hit song without having to worry about parallel structure ... but
there you go - as Jim Noble pointed out, that's why we have poetic licence!

A little housekeeping matter: if
you're overcome by a strange urge to unsubscribe (and having a nice lie down and
a cup of tea doesn't cure you) you can carry out this foul deed by scrolling to
the end of any newsletter and clicking on the (gulp) unsubscribe link ...

Those of you who have occasion to put pen to
paper to persuade will find this fascinating. It's an e-book that discusses many
of the techniques used over the years by those masters of persuasion - the ad
writers. If you've ever wondered why every fast food operator asks if you "want
fries with that?" or which three little words make people want to buy,
you'll enjoy reading this book. You can download a free copy from my site here. Just
click on the link to Greatest Marketing Secrets. (To save a copy to your hard
drive, right click instead of left.) There's also a little surprise on the first
page for those of you who have a business site ... No, that's all I'm saying ...
you'll have to see for yourself.

Frank Sirrett found these and thought we'd get a
chuckle from them:

1. A bicycle can't stand alone
because it is two-tired.
2. What's the definition of a will? It's a dead giveaway.
3. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
4. A backward poet writes inverse.
5. In democracy it's your vote that counts; In feudalism it's your count that
votes.
6. She had a boyfriend with a wooden leg, but broke it off.
7. A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.
8. If you don't pay your exorcist you get repossessed.
9. With her marriage she got a new name and a dress.
10. Show me a piano falling down a mineshaft and I'll show you A-flat minor.

Love the last one :)

Last week's quiz:

Find the odd word:

1. abstract, ideal, CONCRETE, hypothetical

2. agenda, schedule, plan, FLEXIBILITY

3. atmosphere, mood, ambience, AFFABILITY

4. SALVATION, revelation, apocalypse, devastation

5. arduous, SIMPLE, tough, exacting

6. benevolent, altruistic, MALEVOLENT, generous

7. mockery, REPRODUCTION, burlesque, travesty

8. unqualified, categorical, unequivocal, PARTIAL

9. PERMIT, force, coerce, compel

10.complacent, SERIOUS pleased, nonchalant

Rob caught me sleeping in the back row of French class last week:

... in the phrase 'bon môts' you definitely do
not need a circumflex over the 'o' in 'mots'.

The correct phrase is just 'bon mots'.

Oops!

Do you enjoy the odd round of golf? Then you may not appreciate this next
definition that comes from the Cynics Dictionary:

GOLF The art of driving hard,
avoiding the rough, surmounting traps and hazards, aiming straight, and arriving
on the green at last, only to end up in a hole in the ground before your
companions. The favored pastime of businessmen and their cronies, probably
without a full appreciation of its metaphorical implications.

Have you written an article, poem or book
recently? Have your family rolled on the floor laughing or told you that you're
the next Shakespeare/ Harold Robbins? Would you like an honest opinion about
your work?

There are numerous sites on the Internet that
have people who are happy to critique your writing for you - some charge, but
many offer their time freely. This site has links to dozens here

Naturally, you need to be a little circumspect
about these groups ... have a bit of a look around the site, lurk on the boards
and read their sample reviews before you decide which ones to approach. But you
can meet some great people with a similar love of writing at places like
these.

Word of the week: Floccinaucinihilipilification
(n) The act of making something worthless," as in, "I admired him
for nothing so much as his floccinaucinihilipilification of money."

Oxymoron of the week: New Year's
resolution (Ah, c'mon now ... who keeps them?)

This week's Latin phrase is perfect for those of
you struggling to keep your New Year's resolution to stop smoking; give
up eating chocolate, chips and pizza; cut down on your alcohol intake etc etc
...

Difficile est longum subito deponere amorem. (It
is difficult to suddenly give up a long love.)

3. Use your credit card on my secure
order form: http://www.write101.com/fund.htm (You
can also access the PayPal subscription link from this page if the link above
didn't work for you. With PayPal, you can use your credit card, PayPal account
or pay online using your own cheque account.) OR